This
is an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic inquiry
should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means. Wisdom is
taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself
and others. It includes knowledge, understanding and technological know-how,
and much else besides. Friends of Wisdom try to encourage universities
and schools actively to seek and promote wisdom by educational and intellectual
means. At
present, Friends of Wisdom communicate with one
another in the main by email (JISCMAIL). If you wish to join, click
HERE, and then click on "join or leave the list",
or email: nick@knowledgetowisdom.org

Academia as it exists today is the product of two past great intellectual
revolutions.

The first is the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries,
associated with Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Hooke, Newton and many others.
This created modern science. A method was discovered for the progressive
acquisition of knowledge, the famous empirical method of science.

The second revolution is that of the Enlightenment, especially the French
Enlightenment, in the 18th century. Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet and the
other philosophes had the profoundly important idea that it might be possible
to learn from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards
an enlightened world.

They did not just have the idea: they did everything they could to put
the idea into practice in their lives. They fought dictatorial power,
superstition, and injustice with weapons no more lethal than those of
argument and wit. They gave their support to the virtues of tolerance,
openness to doubt, readiness to learn from criticism and from experience.
Courageously and energetically they laboured to promote reason and enlightenment
in personal and social life.

Blunders of the Enlightenment
Unfortunately, in developing the Enlightenment idea intellectually, the
philosophes blundered. They botched the job. They thought the proper way
to implement the Enlightenment Programme of learning from scientific progress
how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world is to develop
the social sciences alongside the natural sciences.

If it is important to acquire knowledge of natural phenomena to better
the lot of mankind, as Francis Bacon had insisted, then (so they thought)
it must be even more important to acquire knowledge of social phenomena.

First, knowledge must be acquired; then it can be applied to help solve
social problems. They thus set about creating and developing the social
sciences: economics, psychology, anthropology, history, sociology, political
science.

This traditional version of the Enlightenment Programme, despite being
damagingly defective, was immensely influential. It was developed throughout
the 19th century, by men such as Saint-Simon, Comte, Marx, Mill and many
others, and was built into the intellectual-institutional structure of
academic inquiry in the first part of the 20th century with the creation
of departments of the social sciences in universities all over the world.

Thus academic inquiry today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knowledge
and technological know-how, is the outcome of two revolutions: the scientific
revolution, and the later profoundly important but very seriously defective
Enlightenment revolution. The outcome is what we have today, a kind of
inquiry devoted to the pursuit of knowledge but, when judged from the
standpoint of promoting human welfare, so irrational that it violates
three of the four most elementary rules of rational problem-solving conceivable.
It is this situation which calls for the urgent need to bring about a
third revolution to put right the structural defects we have inherited
from the Enlightenment.

But what is wrong with the traditional Enlightenment Programme? Almost
everything. In order to implement properly the basic Enlightenment idea
of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards
a civilized world, it is essential to get the following three things right.

1. The progress-achieving methods of science need to be correctly identified.
2. These methods need to be correctly generalized so that they become
fruitfully applicable to any worthwhile, problematic human endeavour,
whatever the aims may be, and not just applicable to the one endeavour
of acquiring knowledge.
3. The correctly generalized progress-achieving methods then need to be
exploited correctly in the great human endeavour of trying to make social
progress towards an enlightened, wise world.

Unfortunately, the philosophes of the Enlightenment got all three points
wrong. And as a result these blunders, undetected and uncorrected, are
built into the intellectual-institutional structure of academia as it
exists today.

Scientific Method
First, the philosophes failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving
methods of natural science. From D'Alembert in the 18th century to Popper
in the 20th, the widely held view, amongst both scientists and philosophers,
has been (and continues to be) that science proceeds by assessing theories
impartially in the light of evidence, no permanent assumption being accepted
by science about the universe independently of evidence.

But this standard empiricist view is untenable. If taken literally,
it would instantly bring science to a standstill. For, given any accepted
scientific theory, T, Newtonian theory say, or quantum theory, endlessly
many rivals can be concocted which agree with T about observed phenomena
but disagree arbitrarily about some unobserved phenomena. Science would
be drowned in an ocean of such empirically successful rival theories.

In practice, these rivals are excluded because they are disastrously
disunified. Two considerations govern acceptance of theories in science:
empirical success and unity. But in persistently accepting unified theories,
to the extent of rejecting disunified rivals that are just as, or even
more, empirically successful, science makes a big persistent assumption
about the universe. The universe is such that all disunified theories
are false. It has some kind of unified dynamic structure. It is physically
comprehensible in the sense that explanations for phenomena exist to be
discovered.

But this untestable (and thus metaphysical) assumption that the universe
is comprehensible is profoundly problematic. Science is obliged to assume,
but does not know, that the universe is comprehensible. Much less does
it know that the universe is comprehensible in this or that way.

A glance at the history of physics reveals that ideas have changed dramatically
over time. In the 17th century there was the idea that the universe consists
of corpuscles, minute billiard balls, which interact only by contact.
This gave way to the idea that the universe consists of point-particles
surrounded by rigid, spherically symmetrical fields of force, which in
turn gave way to the idea that there is one unified self-interacting field,
varying smoothly throughout space and time. Nowadays we have the idea
that everything is made up of minute quantum strings embedded in ten or
eleven dimensions of space-time.

Some kind of assumption along these lines must be made but, given the
historical record, and given that any such assumption concerns the ultimate
nature of the universe, that of which we are most ignorant, it is only
reasonable to conclude that it is almost bound to be false.

The way to overcome this fundamental dilemma inherent in the scientific
enterprise is to construe science as making a hierarchy of metaphysical
assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe,
these assumptions asserting less and less as one goes up the hierarchy,
and thus becoming more and more likely to be true.
In this way a framework of relatively insubstantial, unproblematic, fixed
assumptions and associated methods is created within which much more substantial
and problematic assumptions and associated methods can be changed, and
indeed improved, as scientific knowledge improves.

Put another way, a framework of relatively unspecific, unproblematic,
fixed aims and methods is created within which much more specific and
problematic aims and methods evolve as scientific knowledge evolves. (A
basic aim of science is to discover in what precise way the universe is
comprehensible, this aim evolving as assumptions about comprehensibility
evolve.)

There is positive feedback between improving knowledge, and improving
aims-and-methods, improving knowledge-about-how-to-improve-knowledge.
This is the nub of scientific rationality, the methodological key to the
unprecedented success of science. Science adapts its nature to what it
discovers about the nature of the universe.

Rationality
Second, having failed to identify the methods of science correctly, the
philosophes naturally failed to generalize these methods properly. They
failed to appreciate that the idea of representing the problematic aims
(and associated methods) of science in the form of a hierarchy can be
generalized and applied fruitfully to other worthwhile enterprises besides
science.

Many other enterprises have problematic aims; these would benefit from
employing a hierarchical methodology, generalized from that of science,
thus making it possible to improve aims and methods as the enterprise
proceeds.

There is the hope that, in this way, some of the astonishing success
of science might be exported into other worthwhile human endeavours, with
aims quite different from those of science.

Social Inquiry
Third, and most disastrously of all, the philosophes failed completely
to try to apply such generalized progress-achieving methods to the immense,
and profoundly problematic enterprise of making social progress towards
an enlightened, wise world.

The aim of such an enterprise is notoriously problematic. For all sorts
of reasons, what constitutes a good world, an enlightened, wise or civilized
world, attainable and genuinely desirable, must be inherently and permanently
problematic.

Here, above all, it is essential to employ the generalized version of
the hierarchical, progress-achieving methods of science, designed specifically
to facilitate progress when basic aims are problematic.

Properly implemented, in short, the Enlightenment idea of learning from
scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened
world would involve developing social inquiry as social methodology, or
social philosophy, not primarily as social science.

A basic task would be to get into personal and social life, and into
other institutions besides that of science - into government, industry,
agriculture, commerce, the media, law, education, international relations
- hierarchical, progress-achieving methods (designed to improve problematic
aims) arrived at by generalizing the methods of science.

A basic task for academic inquiry as a whole would be to help humanity
learn how to resolve its conflicts and problems of living in more just,
cooperatively rational ways than at present. This task would be intellectually
more fundamental than the scientific task of acquiring knowledge. Social
inquiry would be intellectually more fundamental than physics.

Academia would seek to teach, and to learn, from the public, actively
promoting and engaging with public discussion about what our most important
problems of living are and what we need to do about them. Academia would
have just sufficient power (but no more) to retain its independence from
government, industry, the press, public opinion, and other centres of
power and influence in the social world. It would seek to learn from,
educate, and argue with the great social world beyond, but would not dictate.

Academic thought would be pursued as a specialized, subordinate part
of what is really important and fundamental: the thinking that goes on,
individually, socially and institutionally, in the social world, guiding
individual, social and institutional actions and life.

The fundamental intellectual and humanitarian aim of inquiry would be
to help humanity acquire wisdom - wisdom being the capacity to realize
(apprehend and create) what is of value in life, for oneself and others,
wisdom thus including knowledge and technological know-how but much else
besides.

One outcome of getting into social and institutional life the kind of
aim-evolving, hierarchical methodology indicated above, generalized from
science, is that it becomes possible for us to develop and assess rival
philosophies of life as a part of social life, somewhat as theories are
developed and assessed within science.

Such a hierarchical methodology "provides a framework within which
diverse philosophies of value - diverse religions, political and moral
views - may be cooperatively assessed and tested against the experience
of personal and social life.

"There is the possibility of cooperatively and progressively improving
such philosophies of life (views about what is of value in life and how
it is to be achieved) much as theories are cooperatively and progressively
improved in science. In science diverse universal theories are critically
assessed with respect to each other, and with respect to experience (observational
and experimental results).

"In a somewhat analogous way, diverse philosophies of life may
be critically assessed with respect to each other, and with respect to
experience - what we do, achieve, fail to achieve, enjoy and suffer -
the aim being so to improve philosophies of life (and more specific philosophies
of more specific enterprises within life such as government, education
or art) that they offer greater help with the realization of value in
life" (N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom, p. 254).

Conclusion
If the Enlightenment revolution had been carried through properly, the
three steps indicated above being correctly implemented, the outcome would
have been a kind of academic inquiry very different from what we have
at present. In particular, academic inquiry would have put into practice
the four elementary rules of rational problem-solving discussed under
Basic Argument for the Need for an Intellectual Revolution. .

This difference, over time, would be bound to have a major impact. What
we have at present, academic inquiry devoted primarily to acquiring knowledge
and technological know-how dissociated from any intellectually more fundamental
concern to help us resolve our conflicts and problems of living in more
cooperatively rational ways - dissociated, that is, from the pursuit of
wisdom - is a recipe for disaster.

Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase
our power to act. In endless ways, this vast increase in our power to
act has been used for the public good - in health, agriculture, transport,
communications, and countless other ways.

But equally, this enhanced power to act can be used, and has been used,
to cause human harm, whether unintentionally, as in environmental damage
(at least initially), or intentionally, as in war.

It is hardly too much to say that all our current global problems have
come about because of the successful scientific pursuit of knowledge and
technological know-how dissociated from wisdom.

The appalling destructiveness of modern warfare and terrorism, vast
inequalities in wealth and standards of living between first and third
worlds, rapid population growth, environmental damage - destruction of
tropical rain forests, rapid extinction of species, global warming, pollution
of sea, earth and air, depletion of finite natural resources - all exist
today because of the massively enhanced power to act (of some), made possible
by modern science and technology.

Nevertheless, science as such is not the problem, but rather science
dissociated from the pursuit of wisdom, the result of our failure to put
right the structural defects in academic inquiry, inherited from the blunders
of the Enlightenment.

Hence the conclusion: we urgently need to bring about a third intellectual
revolution, one which corrects the blunders of the Enlightenment revolution,
so that the basic aim of academia becomes to promote wisdom, and not just
acquire knowledge.

Every branch and aspect of academic inquiry need to change if we are
to have the kind of inquiry, both more rational and of greater human value
than what we have at present, that we really need.